Pentagon Insists End to Strikes Didn't Apply to Attacks on Gadhafi Forces

US officials were keen on making a big deal of their transitioning into a “supporting role” in the Libya War as of April 4, after which point US air strikes were supposed to stop. Many assumed this actually happened, particularly with French and British officials complaining that they were forced to do virtually all the work in the ongoing war this week. In reality, it didn’t.

Rather, the US has been continuing to bomb Libya regularly to this day, and is planning to do so going forward. The Pentagon revealed US warplanes have flown 97 sorties against Libya since April 4, and attacked at least three targets.

The Pentagon defended the flat out lie that they were going to stop bombing Libya, however, insisting that the attacks were “defensive missions” for the ongoing war. They likewise insisted that attacks on certain Gadhafi forces related to air defense “didn’t apply” when they promised to stop their attacks.

The US and France launched their first attacks on Libya on March 19. Within the next 48 hours officials were already describing the war as a stalemate and saying there was likely to be no formal “victory” in the conflict. Officials still have not defined the goals on the conflict, and defended the attacks in only the vaguest of terms.

Liar Liar and Liar is always been a liar.., to the point where even the Liar starts believing that Lies are true.., because is a Lie told by the Liar/s. Yet I think we are going after a long time war in Libya and that’s what Hillary Clinton is after.., Cameron, Sarkozi and Clinton.., what a combination of “Liberal” war mongers.., what is funny about all this is even the Swedish prim minister Fredrik Reinfeldt is involved in this.., actually is not funny is dangerous because he is a man of his words and for last two years his been selling Sweden to a lowest bidder helping the Swedes become poorer then yesterday and making sure that Swedish companies can do as they please stealing peoples money in any way they can.., making sure that corruption in Sweden is among the highest in the world or getting there.

Clinton and her NATO counterparts will meet tomorrow in Berlin to discuss next steps for the Libya mission. Foreign ministers and other officials from the “contact group” of nations involved in Libya are meeting today in Doha, Qatar.

“If Libya can be held together, it will not be a failed state,” said Elliott Abrams, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

What a stupid comment by this Eliot Abrams.., first Hillary Clinton starts the war by willing to help all kind of terrorist groups then she asks for Kaddafi to leave.., then they want to split the Country into East and West and now this idiot comes up with such a comment. Why these people even get paid for what they are not good at.., why these kind of Councils even exist or hire these people or for that matter Obama keeping Hillary Clinton on board…, that is to say if he is not part of this and don’t want to have any more wars…..?

…the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America's role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge. …

NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. …

In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role — including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation — to our military and to American taxpayers — will be reduced significantly. …

…If we tried to overthrow Gadhafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. … That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya."